Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout004 06 95LAND USE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES April 6, 1995 PRESENT: Gayle Anderson Pete Anderson Myrna Cain Mary Harker Kent Kearns Richard Pearson Dusty Whited Meeting came to order at 8:00 p.m. Chairman Kearns asked for approval of the minutes of March 2, 1995. Mary Harker moved to approve the March 2, minutes. It was seconded and all voted in favor. Chairman Kearns asked if any members had a conflict of interest. There were none. PUBLIC HEARING: An application by Darlene D. Siebert, 893 Tanager Drive, Pocatello, Idaho for a conditional use permit to place a modular home at 321 and 311 Adams. Chairman Kearns asked Steve Smart for any additional comments. Steve stated that in 1972 the land along Lucky was zoned to permit mobile homes as a cluster dwelling, but this lot was not included in that designation.. There was discussion of a drawing that was given the Committee for review regarding a 16' driveway going in as a single car driveway. Chairman Kearns states that there is no orientation on the drawing. Apparently, the driveway comes in from Adams. Darlene Siebert's contractor approached the podium to ask about a setback for fencing. He also had some questions about putting in a duplex on the adjacent property. Steve Smart responded by advising the contractor to talk to Cary Campbell. Chairman Kearns opened up the hearing for public testimony in support of the application. There was none. Chairman Kearns then opened the meeting to public testimony in opposition to the application. Fay Burrows, 302 Adams Drive approached the podium. She states that she is not against a mobile home, but is concerned about the other lot. She states she does not want a duplex/multiple dwelling put on the adjacent property. Chairman Kearns replied that this area is currently zoned R2 and there are limitations. Chairman Kearns asked if there was any other testimony opposing. There was none. Pete Anderson moved to Land Use and Development Committee Meeting Page -2- approve putting the mobile home on this property with the stipulation that it is trasferable at the sale of the property so long as it is maintained as a Class II Production Dwelling. The motion was seconded by Mary Harker. Chairman Kearns asked for a role call vote: Gayle Anderson Yes Kent Kearns Yes Peter Anderson Yes Richard Pearson Yes Myrna Cain Yes Dusty Whited Yes Mary Harker Yes Motion was approved. An application by SMF Resources, Inc., 1135 Yellowstone, Suite D, Pocatello, Idaho for a conditional use permit to run a chipping plant located on the east side of Industry Way Street, north of south side street in the north side plaza. The property is presently zoned industrial (I). Representative from SMF Resources, Inc., Gary Brown, 4638 W. Portneuf Road states they have been here in Chubbuck for two (2) years. He also states they would like to put in a wood chipping process. Stan Runnels, 1135 Yellowstone, who is the Secretary/treasurer of SMF Resources, Inc. proceeded to introduce the business and explain exactly what type of business SMF Resources, Inc. is. Chairman Kearns asked for questions from the committee. There were questions presented to SMF Resources, Inc. from committee members as to how many employees will be hired, equipment and technology used and whether or not the business will create a lot of dust and noise. Also, questions were asked about oils and chemicals if any will be used. Runnels proceeded to explain and answer questions. Runnel also told the committee that this operation would be a two (2) year temporary project. Chairman Kearns opened up the hearing for public testimony in support of the application. There was none. Chairman Kearns then opened the meeting to public testimony in opposition. There was none. Myrna Cain made a motion to approve the conditional use permit for SMF Resources, Inc. It was seconded by Dusty Whited and Mary Harker. Chairman Kearns asked for a role call vote: Gayle Anderson Yes Kent Kearns Yes Pete Anderson Yes Richard Pearson Yes Myrna Cain Yes Dusty Whited Yes Mary Harker Yes Motion was approved. Land Use Development Committee Meeting Page -3- An application by Joseph Osier, 11010 West Hickory, Boise, Idaho 83704 for review of a preliminary plat for Misti Manor, 2nd Addition, a subdivision located near corner of Chubbuck Road and Hawthorne, NW 1/4 of Sec. 10. Tim Shurtliff of Shurtliff Engineering represented Mr. Osier on Misti Manor. The committee reviewed the drawing. There was discussion about Misti Manor and the future park. Tim Shurtliffdiscussed the master plan talking about a 50' driving surface and what had been discussed with the City Council. Steve Smart responded with the requirements from City Council. Chairman Kearns opened up the hearing for public testimony in support of the application. There was none. Chairman Kearns then opened the meeting to public testimony in opposition. There was none. Pete Anderson made a motion to adopt the preliminary plat for Misti Manor 2nd Addition with some restrictions; that there be no access from Hawthorne to Lots 7, 12, 11, 10 and 9 and that prior agreements between the City and the Developer be honored. It was seconded by Richard Pearson. Chairman Kearns asked for a role call vote: Gayle Anderson Yes Kent Kearns Yes Pete Anderson Yes Richard Pearson Yes Myrna Cain Yes Dusty Whited Yes Mary Harker Yes Motion was approved. An application by American Heritage, Inc., 920 Deon Drive, Pocatello, Idaho for a review of a preliminary plat for Cottage Grove 1 st Addition, a subdivision located at the north end of Stuart Street. Steve proceed to tell the committee that Cottage Grove 1 st Addition preliminary plat had already been approved by the Land Use Development Committee and City Council nine months ago. Tim Shurtliff', 426 W. Lewis, Pocatello, Idaho came to the podium and explained what the hold up has been. This was approved with conditions back in July. Chairman Kearns opened up the hearing for public testimony in support of the application. There was none. Chairman Kearns then opened the meeting to public testimony in opposition. There was none. Pete Anderson made a motion to adopt the preliminary plat with the same conditions that were applied July, 1994. Motion was seconded by Mary Harker. Chairman Kearns asked for a role call vote: Lane Use Development Committee Meeting Page -4- Gayle Anderson Yes Kent Kearns Yes Pete Anderson Yes Richard Pearson Yes Myrna Cain Yes Dusty Whited Yes Mary Harker Yes Motion was approved. Chairman Kearns closed the public hearing. GENERAL BUSINESS: Ellen Sparks wants to build an apartment in the basement of her home. There was discussion by the committee about zoning. The zoning for this area is R2. There was discussion about the committee defining a geographic area. Pete Anderson made a motion to define the geographic area which would be the south and west boundary lines of the subdivision, the east boundary line being Cotant Park starting north in the direction of Cotant Park to Chubbuck Road, with the north boundary line being Chubbuck Road. Motion was seconded by Myrna Cain. Chairman Kearns asked for a role call vote: Gayle Anderson Yes Kent Kearns Yes Pete Anderson Yes Richard Pearson Yes Myrna Cain Yes Dusty Whited Yes Mary Harker Yes Motion was approved. Proposed Class I~ Production Building Ordinance. There was lengthy discussion by the committee on the proposed Class III Production Building Ordinance. The committee reviewed a letter from Tom Holmes, City Attorney. There was discussion about whether to adopt or not. Some committee members are concerned about existing Class III homes having to be moved out. If adopted this would take effect in five years (year 2000). The committee decided to check into other trailer courts and their restrictions. Then they will decide in the near future. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:44 P.M. Teresa Strieber, Secretary "~ent K~arns, Chairman CITY OF CHUBBUCK LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION This matter having come before the Commission for public hearing pursuant to public notice as required by law, on April 6, 1995, upon the application of Darlene D. Siebert (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") for a conditional use permit to place a modular home on the real property located at 321 and 311 Adams and the Commission having heard testimony from interested parties and being fully advised in the matter, now makes the following: above. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit as particularly described 2. All legal requirements for notice of public hearing have been met. 3. The property in question is zoned R-2, Limited Residential pursuant to the Land Use Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck. 4. The property is designated as R-2, Limited Residential in the duly adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chubbuck. 5. Relevant criteria and standards for consideration of this application are set forth in Idaho Code section 67-6512 and in Chubbuck Code section 18.28.040 (C). 6. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria and standards are as follows: A. In 1972 land nearby on Lucky Avenue was zoned to permit mobile homes as a cluster dwelling, but this lot was omitted. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the Land Use and Development Commission hereby enters the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The use for which the permit is sought will not be injurious to the --� neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1 dsc chbbck12.05b n 2. The permit sought will not produce an adverse impact on the economic values of adjacent properties. n 3. The permit sought will not produce a negative impact on transportation facilities, public utilities, schools, public parks, or the natural environment any greater than had the strict terms of the Land Use Ordinance been complied with. 4. The noise and traffic conditions generated by the use for which the permit is sought, when analyzed in conjunction with the noise and traffic conditions now existing does not indicate that the permit should be denied. 5. The use for which the permit is sought shall not work an unreasonable hardship upon surrounding property owners by virtue of its physical natures or by the impact of changes made in the landscape of the land. 6. The aesthetic qualities of the proposed use will not conflict with aesthetic qualities of the surrounding lands. 7. The adverse impact of the proposed use on other development within the City has not been minimized by Applicant as much as is reasonably possible. 8. Owners of adjacent property have not expressed approval or disapproval of the issuance of the requested conditional use permit. 9. The requested conditional use permit, if granted, should be maintained subject to the conditions set forth below. DECISION 1. The Land Use and Development Commission, pursuant to the foregoing, finds that the request of the applicant should be approved. 2. The following conditions, if any, are hereby imposed upon the granting of said conditional use permit and applicant, by taking advantage of said conditional use permit agrees to the imposition of the same: A. Permit is assignable. 3. The conditional use permit requested by the Applicant is granted, subject to the foregoing conditions. 4. Takings. Pursuant to Idaho Code 5 67-8001 et seq., the Commission makes the following findings with respect to the decision in this action: FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION • Page 2 dac chbbck/2.0.5b ,O.1 A. This Action does not result in a permanent or temporary physical occupation of private property. B. This Action does not require the property owner to dedicate a portion of the property or to grant an easement. C. This Action does not deprive the owner of the property of all viable uses of the property. D. This Action does not have a significant impact on the landowner's economic interest. E. This Action does not deny a fundamental attribute of ownership. F. This Action does not serve the same purpose that would be served by directly prohibiting the use or action; nor does the condition imposed substantially advance such purpose. DATED this day of k� 19 �r . LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION By�r" .✓�------- Chairman FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION • Page 3 dsc chbbckl2.05b /0-111 CITY OF CHUBBUCK LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION This matter having come before the Commission for public hearing pursuant to public notice as required by law, on April 6, 1995, upon the application of SMF Resources, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") for a conditional use permit to run a chipping plant on the real property located at the east side of Industrial Way, north side of south side street in North Side Plaza and the Commission having heard testimony from interested parties and being fully advised in the matter, now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit as particularly described above. 2. All legal requirements for notice of public hearing have been met. 3. The property in question is zoned Industrial (I) pursuant to the Land Use Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck. 4. The property is designated as Industrial (I) in the duly adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chubbuck. 5. Relevant criteria and standards for consideration of this application are set forth in Idaho Code section 67-6512 and in Chubbuck Code section 18.28.040 (C). 6. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria and standards are as follows: years. A. SMF Resources, Inc. has been in Chubbuck for approximately two B. The chipping process would be for about two years. C. The use appears compatible with the industrial zoning. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the Land Use and Development Commission hereby enters the following: FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1 dsc chbbck12.05a CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The use for which the permit is sought will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 2. The permit sought will not produce an adverse impact on the economic values of adjacent properties. 3. The permit sought will not produce a negative impact on transportation facilities, public utilities, schools, public parks, or the natural environment any greater than had the strict terms of the Land Use Ordinance been complied with. 4. The noise and traffic conditions generated by the use for which the permit is sought, when analyzed in conjunction with the noise and traffic conditions now existing does not indicate that the permit should be denied. 5. The use for which the permit is sought will not work an unreasonable hardship upon surrounding property owners by virtue of its physical natures or by the impact of changes made in the landscape of the land. 6. The aesthetic qualities of the proposed use will not conflict with aesthetic qualities of the surrounding lands. n 7. The adverse impact of the proposed use on other development within the City has not been minimized by Applicant as much as is reasonably possible. 8. Owners of adjacent property have not expressed approval or disapproval of the issuance of the requested conditional use permit. 9. The requested conditional use permit, if granted, should be maintained subject to the conditions set forth below. DECISION 1. The Land Use and Development Commission, pursuant to the foregoing, finds that the request of the applicant should be approved. 2. The following conditions, if any, are hereby imposed upon the granting of said conditional use permit and applicant, by taking advantage of said conditional use permit agrees to the imposition of the same: None. 3. The conditional use permit requested by the Applicant is granted. 4. Takings. Pursuant to Idaho Code S 67-8001 et seq., the Commission makes ^ the following findings with respect to the decision in this action: FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2 dao chbbck12.05a A. This Action does not result in a permanent or temporary physical occupation of private property. B. This Action does not require the property owner to dedicate a portion of the property or to grant an easement. C. This Action does not deprive the owner of the property of all viable uses of the property. D. This Action does not have a significant impact on the landowner's economic interest. E. This Action does not deny a fundamental attribute of ownership. F. This Action does not serve the same purpose that would be served by directly prohibiting the use or action; nor does the condition imposed substantially advance such purpose. �4 DATED this % day of t �G,. , 1 ?9,5. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSSION By: '4L ��--- Chairman FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3 dec chbbckl2.05a